Michael wrote:
However, Rule 1564 does not require that a Trial Judge be named. Nor
does R754 explicitly require that entities be named (as opposed to
identified, which would be achieved by stating "I appeal the Trial
Judge of CFJ 1594's Judgement of CFJ 1594").
Nor, indeed, is precedent with the caller: appeals have been
traditionally expressed as "I appeal this Judgement", or "I appeal CFJ
<n>", with no explicit mention of the Trial Judge (name or identity)
at all.
This argument entirely and completely ignores the facts of the case,
that "traditionally" appealing a CFJ is synonymous with appealing a
specific trial judge's judgement, so there's no confusion if you
don't name anyone. There is no "tradition" whatsoever in cases where
one CFJ has two judges with conflicting authority (e.g. without
a REASSIGN).
Let's say, in this case, the decision is "OVERTURN AND REVERSE".
Did that "OVERTURN AND REVERSE" apply to Goethe's FALSE or
Sherlock's TRUE? There's no legal distinction the appeals court
can make to distinguish them.
-Goethe
